We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, September 30. 2009
Polanski is on record as claiming that all guys "want to f- young girls." Perhaps some do, but guys with young daughters tend not to approve of the notion: the idea tends to make them go load their guns. Althouse wonders about the pedophilia of Hollywood types.
I would just like to offer the comment that, from a psychological standpoint, desire for 13 year-old girls is not really pedophilia. In the past, 13 year-old women routinely married and, without spending time on a search, I wonder how many girls in NYC get pregant at 13? I'll bet it's many.
No, the issue is not whether men (or women, for that matter) are sometimes attracted to young people, or whether 13 year-olds can be sexy witches, or whether 44 year-olds can be drawn to young females.
The issue is the law. Forcible sex, and sex with the underaged, are illegal. Admittedly the latter is rarely enforced when the guy is underaged too but, regardless of our sexual inclinations and fantasies, or our opinions about every law, we all implicitly agree to obey the laws by virtue of our citizenship - or to accept the consequences like the adults we are presumed to be. That's Adulthood 101.
Rape is illegal. Everybody knows that. We used to hang people for it. It has never been in fashion, to my knowledge. Until now.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"[R]egardless of our inclinations or our opinions about every law, we all implicitly agree to obey them by virtue of our citizenship..."
Perhaps that will be Polanski's "ingenious" defence: he's not a US citizen.
Technically, it's not a defense. The best you can do is let the law play its part, then hope that the country trying you will agree with your home country to "take you back" and rehabilitate you.
Still, the judgment against you remains intact, and usually you're not permitted to return (if the crime is severe enough).
Overall, I think Polanski is a dirtbag, and he is getting his just desserts. However, I do believe the better part of justice would have been served chasing down killers like Ted Kennedy. By comparison, Roman Polanski is a skeevy jerk who was doped up and confused. Teddy was a stone cold killer - leaving a dying girl in a car while he wandered around in a drunken stupor doing God knows what.
Howdy Dr Bliss
I would add a moral dimension as well as a legal dimension. Responsible adults protect those who are too young to make their own decisions. Sometimes the adults must protect young people from the adults themselves: their understandble desires that would bring harm if the adults act on them, or allow the child to act on the child's own wishes toward the adult. I'm trying to find grammatical but gender-neutral terminology. You point out, correctly, that the desires are normal for men and women alike.
Regarding mutually underage relationships: most states now use a three-year policy: if the older participant is up to three years older than the underage participant, absent coercion, the events are not considered criminal. Mileage varies greatly, of course.
I have a VERY attractive step-daughter. While out in public together, I got used to two distinct reactions;
Women of a certain age would see us together and shoot me the most withering look they could muster. It embarrassed me and I would often mouth the word "daughter" to them
Men of a certain age would size her up, then give me a wink, thumbs up or something equally stupid. You are completely correct; it made my thoughts wander towards firearms.
I have a daughter - when I consider Polanski's crime my thoughts wander towards medieval torture devices and much quality time in a dungeon.
To see elitists here are abroad campaigning for his release is utterly disgusting.
Speaking of fashionable pederasty:
We have but a few more days to gather petition signatures for the Sam Adams recall. For those of you not in Portland Oregon, which should be most of you, Sam Adams is our pedophile mayor. He admits to having sexual relations with a 17 year old boy who he was "mentoring" and simultaneously "grooming". The admitted to full sex act, beyond the long make-out sessions they had previously enjoyed, was committed some hours after the youth turned 18. Nobody disputes the facts. He lied about it before the election, after the election, and has even apologized for lying to win an election. He has not apologized to the folks he ruined by calling them homophobes (gays included in that lot).
However, Sam's defenders tend to cite changing societal standards for his proclivities. It's no big deal. Fashionable almost.
Portland Oregon, the only town in America where you only need be 18 to suck down a Sam Adams.
Let us all hope the attourney general allows the signatures to be counted. Gay activists have been sullying the petitions by signing them, over and over- which nullifies up to 11 other signatures on each sheet they sign illegally.
My daughter is so beautiful sometimes I find myself mesmerized just looking at her. She and I were walking across a mall street when a carload of Mexicans and blacks stopped and muttered stuff at her with lascivious looks of lust. She didn't notice, but I turned and it's the closest I've ever come to becoming a heat-seeking missile.
As far as the girl in Polanski's case, I read her grand jury testimony last night. I ended up with zero sympathy for her. The grand jury wants every single detail, and she gave them including how she explained to Polanski that taking a quaalude would not make him unable to drive. She took less than half a pill on her own volition just as she drank the champagne. She explained to the jury that she had had sex before Polanski 'two' times (I bet), and that she had been drunk before several times. She had also willingly gone out three times with Polanski and taken her clothes off, on her own, each time. Polanski never once forced her to do any of those things. He suggested it for the photographs and she complied. They were also not befuddled or drunk at the time they had sex, and she, again, willingly walked into the bedroom where the sex occurred. She did not run screaming out of the house, she, in fact, called her mother to tell her she would be late. She chose not to wear a bra on any of the outings she went on with Polanski and willingly posed on three separate occasions without her shirt. Polanski never photographed without her underwear on. During the sex, Polanski asked her if she were on birth control and she said no, so he asked if he could 'go from the back'. She did not fight him, nor did she scream and yell when a female, older woman resident of the house knocked on the door of the bedroom they were in.
The subtleties of her posings cannot be garnered from words on paper, but it is apparent that she wanted a career as an actress or model, as she put it, and was more than willing to use Polanski to get there. As well, her mother was aware of every outing with Polanski and let her go unaccompanied.
All three, Polanski, the girl, and her mother are scum. That may be why he was able to plea for 'sex with a minor' instead of rape.
As for Polanski's comment that had he murdered someone, there would have been less objection.... and why as he goes on to say - the judge, the lawyers, all men think about f..king young girls. Ever read about the travel to Thailand for very young girls or that the number one sites on porn are older men having sex with young girls? Ever see that 'young' girl that Maggie's Farm posts often because she gets the most salacious and prurient comments of all the half-naked beauties they post. The 'young' girl is made to look like a student and the comments soar.
Look homeward, you angels of justice, and things are far from what they seem. The 'victim' in this case received a large settlement, and she is begging authorities not to reopen the case. If you read her testimony, you know why. She does not want the world to know she was a slut, a druggie, and a boozer before she even met Polanski.
You rationalized away everything except the rule of law. So they are all scum bags and they all made bad decisions and all men are dogs, according to you, so lets suspend the law for certain idiots who deserve their fate. Good idea, lets now apply it to murder. Who gets to decide whether the laws should be inforced if a drug dealer kills a pimp. Maybe we should have two types of court. One to decide whether to prosecute based on whether the defendants and victims are scum bags, and one to try the case.
I didn't rationalize a thing. I gave the facts from the grand jury testimony.
I suggest you reconcile those before you enter the court room and pass judgement. Ask yourself while you're at it if it was rape. It could just have easily been a set-up.
I don't generalize, Sean. I did not say "..all men are dogs.." I just gave you facts. Don't accuse me of playing with the law. I didn't go there. I just gave you the salient facts of her testimony. The law in fact did accept the lesser charge no doubt having read her testimony. Why don't you go read it before you jump down a woman's throat who took the trouble to do some research before she sounded off.
She was 13. He was a grown man. That is all that matters.
What matters is discernment. Have you read about or seen the show about the organization that works to free men who are in prison for crimes they did not commit? Most were put there by judges who lacked discernment and dismissed these men with a wave of his hand when some woman cried 'foul' or 'rape'. This organization can't keep up with the demands for justice, but they work tirelessly to help these men and have had remarkable success via new technology in freeing many of them.
The sad part of the show is when you witness the guy walking out of prison after twenty years.... they don't have grudges or feelings of revenge. The state gives them bus fare and a hundred bucks and a bon voyage. One man was in jail after paying child support for fifteen years only to find out the child wasn't his. He stopped paying and they put him in jail. He wasn't married to the 'mother' but agreed to pay believing her when she said the child was his.
The rule of law is a good thing, but it requires discernment and truth in order to function. Part of that discernment is for the judge to recognize that the female species is far more mercurial than the male.
Funny how we adopted much of our governance and law from the Greeks and Romans. Every nobleman had a young boy to pleasure him. Mothers groomed their sons to be picked by a noble man knowing their sons would be educated and perhaps attain a higher station in life.
Whatever...... Put that student/slut picture back up so the guys can drool and make untoward comments - forgetting all the while that the young girl willingly posed for that shot for the purpose it exacts.
You make a very passioned and factually based argument, Meta. But I don't buy it. I haven't read that grand jury report, do you have a link?... but if it is as you represent, then fine. The thirteen year old was partially culpable.
To my mind that does nothing to excuse Polanski's actions. I will be dead in a few years, and won't care about any of this. But in the interim... Polanski was/is a pedophile, no matter the enticements. I'd place him against the wall and shoot him. With no regrets.
If he were a brown skinned, illegal alien, no one would be spending a moment in defending Polanski.
You're on a tilt-a-whirl of passion, here, Luther. My commentary is not empassioned, it's based on fact. Go to SmokingGun.com and read for yourself.
What I've done here is taken several men out of their comfort zones by making them see another viewpoint that gags their sensibilities. I don't make knee-jerk statements and I'm rationalizing pedophilia? Give me a break. People have horse blinders on at times, and when they're yanked off by the suggestion and truth that a 13 year old female was naughty, they kill the suggestor.
Passion... what's that? I'm too old for that shit.
Your facts may all be fine. But if I where a thirty something man working myself up in rationalization to butt fucking a thirteen year old I like to think I'd have second thoughts. Actually, I know I would have second thoughts. And I wouldn't go through with it. Polanski did.
To me, it makes no difference if the thirteen year old was the biggest slut in Southern California.
Polanski had the choice to be a man, or not. He failed.
Hey. Since when has The Farm started editing comments as opposed to simply deleting those they find offensive? That's pure crap.
What was it? "negro"? "parade"? "metaphor alert"?
or did I say "Oh my god" at the end? I can't remember.
SHEESH. Let's not soil our sensibilities now.
I learned more about the "facts" of this case from your posts than I did from the couple of fly by reads I did in the news media.
You have added color to a black and white picture.
Discernment is necessary as you point out.
I do think there is an extra burden on the older party, who in theory is supposed to have both better judgment and self-control. Think of the cases where the roles are reversed with female teachers seducing minor male students.
The only judgment you made in your initial post was that "[a]ll three, Polanski, the girl, and her mother are scum." It's hard to disagree with that conclusion.
Ain't any defense for an adult male to hose a 13 yr.old child, plain and simple.
Meta maybe you rode the tilt-a whirl too long on this one.?
No, I am not suggesting you were a whore at 13, and even if you was it has nothing to do my clear spoken statment.
You do come across as a pitbull at times and I like that!
I make it habit not to get pushed around.
But you made no clear spoken statement that I can see. Want to rephrase it for me so I don't end up muttering small talk at the wall?
Looks as if I'm keeping a Farmer up monitoring comments so he/she can delete them or edit them. Go to bed. I've got a book to read.
I'll be back, though. I'll be on this Titanic when it finally sinks. It's already hit the iceberg.
This farmer is up monitoring comments but not deleting them.
Got to say Meta what you have is written are thoughts that have meandered through my brain too. This case has a lot of rough edges, to say the very least.
Here's A Rorshak Test For Folks
What did Lewis Carroll see?
What you see is what you are.
Your test is here--
I'll go first.
What I see is a young girl who has obviously been coached, and very well coached, in the fine art of displaying a sort of sensual innocence.
Nothing was edited here by any of us.
Some things could have been caught by filter, however.
Point counter point.
Meta you ignorant slut. ( Dan Aykroyd to Jane Curtain)
Your summation of the girl, the mother,and Polanski, as Barrett concurred is dead on.
Luther's posts are correct too. I don't believe that he does not know what passion is. He is a stud pretending to be an old geyser.
I to have two beautiful girls, when they are with me I stare everyone down.
When my kids were young. I would have my wife pick up and take home the baby sitter. I would never put my self in a compromised situation.
Doing what Polanski did ( consent or not) would violate every code of honor I have.
Where are all the Hollywood supporter's of the Catholic priests. Not a peep out of them .
Can you send me a picture of your beautiful daughter? : )
I'll send you a picture of my stud muffin son.
Calm yourself down, you hot fox. Can you take out those Iranian missiles for us?
Uh,guys, that Polanski broke the law has already been settled. As the law was then, he broke it. He fled before sentencing. Now whether what he did was morally wrong, whether the victim cooperated, her mother was a conspirator is immaterial. He ran away and now he must face the consequences of his cowardice. Just as Andrew Luster was caught and finally faced the music, so must Polanski. Not only was I infuriated by his actions (grown men do not seduce little girls even if said Lolita wants it) but he flaunted the rule of law for decades. Sorry, he should have stayed and fought it out. He suffered not a whit for his crimes.
The best question I have heard about this case is "What if he were Father Polanski?"
Meta! Finally found a worthy candidate to go up against Rahm Emanuel! You go, girl!
P.S. Are we discussing whether Polanski is a pedophile or if he should pay his dues? jdgjtr is right: he was found guilty and flaunted the rule of law. He needs to face the music.
Why don't you all do some research and THINK?
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009
Victim: Courts Did More Harm Than Polanski
Samantha Geimer, the 13-year-old sexually molested by director Roman Polanski, is 45 today and wishes the whole matter would go away. "Every time this case is brought to the attention of the court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others," Geimer wrote in her affidavit to a January court filing seeking the dismissal of the charges. "That attention is not pleasant to experience."
One potential factor in her attitude: Geimer sued Polanski many years ago and an out-of-court settlement was reached.
"It is not about Polanski being a scumbag, he is. It is about the US legal system being about itself and not about society or the parties involved.
If you go to thesmokinggun.com you can read the letter to the court from the lawyers of the girl's parents stating that they did not want a trial, did not want Polansky to serve jail, wanted Polansky to attend rehab and wanted to Polanksy to admit his guilt. Polansky then plead guilty and went into a rehab/observation clinic. The judge and prosecutor had agreed to let Polansky off with time served. You only plead guilty when there is a deal set up and agreed upon.
However Polansky's lawyers received word that the judge was going back on is word and was going to throw Polansky in jail. That is why he bolted. The judge was probably bowing to political pressure.
The crime is with the LA judicial system not Polansky.
#1 | POSTED BY F---- AT 2009-09-29 03:27 PM
(I shortened the commenter's name.)
Geimer sued Polanski many years ago and an out-of-court settlement was reached
One might almost conclude, mom and daughter got what they wanted--some money.
Didn't get the acting job, but did get the money.
None of the participants come off well. That leaves the matter of a guilty verdict to be reconciled legally. The judge on the case now has said he will hear whatever Polanski brings to court, but it has to start with bringing Polanski to court. I think that is valid.
BTW: to "flaunt" something is to show it ostentatiously: "I flaunted my nice red Ferrari... " To "flout" something is to ignore it "...while flouting the speed limit." Polanski flouted the courts; he did not flaunt them.
flaunt also means to show defiance, according to my dictionary.
It's just crazy. The same people would flip out if you suggested a 13 year old would be able to take the NY subway by herself, or teach herself math, or sign a car loan, or a million other things... Heck, apparently 22 year olds shouldn't even be held responsible for half the thins they do, according to the people who infantilize the young.
Adults can't even be trusted to choose to eat trans fats or soda or smoke. But this? Apparently she is old enough at 13.
Polanski plead guilty. That is not the problem. At the urgence of the girl's family, he agreed to a plea bargain and the judge sent him off to rehab - whatever that means. While he was in rehab, Polanski asked the judge (petitioned the court) if he could go to France to finish working on a movie. The judge said okay and off to France went Polanski. While he was in France working on the movie, Polanski did some skiing and drinking. That made the judge mad and word came to Polanski's lawyers that the judge might revise his original sentence - which at that time was rehab. Polanski never returned to the states. He didn't flee as he had the permission of the judge. I do not know if the judge told Polanski he could not ski or drink, but the fear of serious jail time and a disregard for the conditions of the original plea bargain trumped and Polanski stayed in France.
What would the judge charge him with? Skiing while drinking? Absconding with self? Refusal to come home? Contempt of court? All are valid, evidently, but the one thing they will not charge him with is rape. He has admitted his guilt on that charge.
It makes you wonder how 'wanted' he was if it took U.S. authorities 30 years to catch him. While Polanski has only traveled in 'neutral' countries, it wouldn't take the CIA or the Mossad or the SIS 48 hours to lure him into a place where they could nail him if they wanted. No wonder the 'victim' is screaming bloody murder at the court. She's thinking... ugh, they're going to show my copper-colored panties soaked in semen that I took off myself. They'll be all crusty and brittle after thirty years. She's one unhappy Valley Girl these days thinking, 'Dang, why didn't I run?'
I'm losing your point here, Meta. It would seem, now, that you're saying Polanski is an entirely innocent man. Instinctively reacting only to the capriciousness of the American judicial system, an attention seeking thirteen year old and the malevolent intent of the thirteen year olds mother. So much injustice he is suffering from his loving gesture of anal sex with a thirteen year old. Poor man. His life has been ruined by such a small and, to him, whimsical moment of consensual lust.
I have been taking care of barely pubescent girl for fouryears now. She likes to be touched, and to touch. We are very comfortable with each other, and regularly have "girl nights, often ending up in bed having sexual intercourse. She is hard to refuse when she wants to "play". I know I'm not alone in this. In the meantime, I'm learning, and beginning to have a lot of fun. Respond to Catherine.